continue_rejected_video_question

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that grading is retained unchanged, no answer is resubmitted, completion is neither sought nor claimed, and no automatic dismissal policy is created. Still missing are idempotency/repeat behavior and any permission or failure-mode context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is dense and slightly jargony ('continue callback', 'seeks or claims completion'), which costs a little immediate comprehensibility.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Behavioral narration is solid and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, a three-parameter mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions leaves the agent guessing about two boolean flags — a significant gap in what is otherwise a well-described tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description is the only source, and it says nothing about question_token, user_requested, or repeat_confirmed. 'Explicit user-requested' and 'one-time operation' faintly gesture at the two booleans, but an agent cannot determine what question_token is or when to set repeat_confirmed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (explicit dismissal of a rejected video question) and the mechanism used (the player's existing continue callback). The second sentence implicitly distinguishes it from answer_video_question by asserting it never resubmits an answer, though no sibling is named directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Explicit user-requested' and 'one-time operation' imply a precondition (only call on explicit user request, only once), but the guidance is embedded rather than stated as a rule. No alternative is named — answer_video_question, observe_video_question, and defer_current_learning_task are never referenced, so an agent must infer what to do instead of dismissing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.